M
"

Directory

Introduction

Glossary

Input

Data Framework

Performance Assurance

Scenario

Create

Format

Store

Environment

Query & Concretise

Allocate

Execute

Safety Argument

Coverage

Test Evaluate

Safety Case

Decide

Audit

Use Cases

SAF Solutions

Submit Feedback

SUNRISE Safety Assurance Framework

Safety Case

Input Scenario Create Format Store Environment Query & Concretise Allocate Execute Safety Argument Coverage Test Evaluate Safety Case Decide Audit

A Safety Case is a set of documents with the argumentation and evidence that a CCAM system meets the (legal) safety requirements imposed by a vehicle safety body like a type-approval authority or NCAP institute.

The Safety Case block of the SUNRISE SAF, enables manufacturers to determine whether the system is ready for assessment by a vehicle safety body. When ready, the Safety Case is submitted to that vehicle safety body, who subsequently decides whether sufficient evidence exists that the CCAM system meets their safety requirements and can be approved.

The Safety Case block explains that a comprehensive Safety Case for a CCAM system (in case of regulatory compliance) should address the following key topics:

  1. Regulatory Compliance Evidence:
    1. Specific Requirements – Quantified test results with clear pass/fail criteria for defined requirements, including scenario coverage explanations relative to the Operational Design Domain (ODD) of the CCAM system.
    2. General Requirements – Reasoned argumentation supported by data demonstrating collision avoidance capabilities for reasonably foreseeable scenarios.
    3. Soft Requirements – Qualitative/semi-quantitative assessments of system behavior characteristics like robustness, smoothness and predictability.
  2. Safety Risk Quantification:
    1. Residual Safety Risk Assessment – Clear, transparent calculations using approaches like Positive Risk Balance (PRB) or Globalement Au Moins Aussi Bon (GAMAB).
    2. Risk Calculation Components – Combined analysis of crash probability, severity and exposure across scenarios using data-driven scenario identification.
  3. Verification and Validation (V&V):
    1. Methods, Tools, and Data – Evidence that all assessment methods, tools and data are valid and reliable. For example:
      • Tools for generation of scenarios
      • Scenario databases and tools for the selection of scenarios
      • Tools used in proving ground testing (like measurement equipment or targets)
      • Tools and models used in virtual simulation
    2. Test Documentation – Comprehensive test reports and system behavior documentation across relevant scenarios, enabling spot checks and verification by authorities.

The Safety Case must be explainable to experts, politicians, and the public while providing sufficient evidence for vehicle safety bodies to determine road deployment readiness .

SAF Application Guidelines for 'Safety Case'

By following the steps outlined below, users of the SUNRISE SAF can apply the Safety Case block to ensure that an Automated Driving System (ADS) has sufficient evidence-based documentation to demonstrate compliance with (legal) safety requirements and support regulatory type-approval decisions for deployment on public roads.

In the list below, “D” stands for Deliverable. All deliverables of the SUNRISE project can be found here.

 

  1. Review regulatory requirements which can be subdivided as follows (D2.3 Section 4.3.3):
    1. Specific Requirements:
      • Verify that test results demonstrate pass/fail in each test
      • Check for explanation of scenario coverage relative to the ADS’s ODD
    2. General Requirements:
      • Review reasoned argumentation supported by data
      • Confirm demonstration of what collisions can be considered reasonably foreseeable
      • Verify that the ADS is able to avoid collisions in these scenarios
    3. Soft Requirements:
      • Assess qualitative or semi-quantitative assessments
      • Review documentation of system behaviour in relevant scenarios
      • Enable authorities to check evidence through evaluation of test reports and performance of spot checks

 

  1. Assess safety risk quantification (D2.3 Section 4.3.3):
    1. Ensure assessment results are clear, transparent and explainable to experts, politicians, and public.
    2. Review documentation of residual safety risk associated with ADS deployment.
    3. Verify approaches used (such as Positive Risk Balance or GAMAB).
    4. Confirm that data-driven scenario identification includes exposure levels and parameter distributions.
    5. Validate that overall risk calculation properly combines crash probability, severity, and exposure across scenarios.

 

  1. Verification & Validation (V&V) of methods, tools, and data by checking that documentation covers (D2.3 Section 4.3.3):
    1. Data, scenario databases, and selection tools
    2. Scenario generation and sampling methods
    3. Equipment used in physical testing (vehicles, sensors, obstructions, measurement equipment)
    4. Simulation models (for vehicles, sensors, environment, etc.)
  • Important Note: If V&V documentation is unavailable, appropriate validation efforts must be undertaken to fill these gaps.